In an Aug. 17 letter to the editor in the Washington Post, Gabriele de Plano, vice president of marketing and operations for Beretta Defense Technologies based in Accokeek, Maryland, asked some interesting questions about the U.S. military’s efforts to replace the company’s M9 9mm pistol in the Modular Handgun System trials.
VP de Plano argued that the Army could upgrade the existing M9 pistol for far less money than developing a new Modular Handgun System, or MHS.
In the letter to the editor, he wrote, “Regarding the Aug. 9 Business article, ‘Beretta’s fight to arm the military,’ about the company losing a U.S. military contract for M9 pistols: “Beretta has made an effort to provide updated M9 pistols to the U.S. armed forces. As far back as 2003, we offered the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps M9 pistol upgrades. In 2006, the Marine Corps adopted the M9A1 pistol, an upgraded version of the M9 pistol.
“In 2012 and 2013, we presented the Army with upgrades that increased the reliability and modularity of the M9 pistol. M9 upgrades presented to the Army last year would satisfy 84 percent of the Army’s requirements for a Modular Handgun System without the half-billion-dollar cost of that program.
“Numerous firearms used by the U.S. government and adopted more than 30 years ago still meet and exceed mission requirements because of upgrades that the government accepted, including the M2/M2A1, M4/M4A1, M16/M16A2, M240/M240B/M240L and M320/M320A1. Why should the M9 pistol be treated differently?” The Shooter’s Log is interested in the answers to those questions as well.
To see our previous coverage of the Beretta M9 and Model 92, click the links below:
- SHOT 2015—Beretta M9A3
- Art of the Gun: Beretta 92 Series M9
- Firearm of the Week, the Beretta 92 Series, Pistol 9mm M9, the One with MOJO
- The Best of the Beretta 92
- In Defense of the Beretta 92